ML20059F021
| ML20059F021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Upton F HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F026 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009110063 | |
| Download: ML20059F021 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _.
r*
l l
o c
+[usue UNITED 5TATES
.I g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I '
I
{
f WASHING T ON, D. C. 20$$$
\\...* /
August 8, 1990 l
}
The Honorable Fred Upton t'
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Upton:
I am responding to your June 8,1990, letter in which you requested our consideration of concerns raised by your constituent, Mr. Herman Drenth, on i
behalf of the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners. Their concerns involve the potential classification of certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as below regulatory concern or BRC.
As you may be aware, on July 3,1990, the Comission issued a Below.tegulatory i
Concern Policy Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of the policy statement and; a companion explanatory booklet for your information (Enclosures 1 and 2).
I would point out that the polit:y is not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any low-level radioactive waste. Rather, the policy states the principles and criteria that would apply to Comission decisions which would allow licensed radioactive material to be released to.the environment or to the general public. Any specific exemption decision would be accom)11shed through i
rulemaking or licensing actions during which opportunity for pu)1ic coment t
would be provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions have not already been established.
Furthermore, th( policy has implications beyond i
waste disposals in that it would also provide the basis for decomissioning
+
decisions involving the release of lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptions.
The BRC policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to "... e;tablish standards and procedures... and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation... due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern."
The Commission, in issuing the BRC policy, has acted in the belief.that the nation's best interests would be served by a policy that establishes a consistent risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with t
assurance th3t human health and the environment are protected.
In this regard our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies, e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration i
l 900911ooss 9oosoe FULLTEXT ASCli BCAN PDR ORG NE E Y
Ok CMr K gg
The Honorable Fred Upton 2
l (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.
I also believe our policy will contribute to the focusing of our radiation prote', tion resources on those risks with greatest potential impact on public health and safety.
With regard to the Board's concerns regarding significant increases in radioactive waste, I can assure you that any f.t.W that could be ev5.idered for BRC classification would involve only materitis with the lowe:* Ms of i
radioactivity content.
In fact, the level of radioactivity may be such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable. A BRC finding by the Consnission would mean that the waste will pose a low risk which is sufficiently small that specific regulation of the landfill, incinerator or hazardous waste site for radiological protection purposes is unnecesbry. Public assurance that BRC waste co,aplies with applicable conditions and constraints would be provided by radiological surveys and process controls required of the weste generator before the DRC waste could be released for unlicensed disposal.
The NRC would use its comprehensive licensing, inspection and enforcement program to ensure that licensees comply with exemption criteria and conditions.
In conclusion I believe our BRC policy is in concert with our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment.
I hope these views and the enclosed information will prove useful in res mnding to your constituents and in responsibly expanding the dialogue on t11s controversial.
t and technically complen issue.
Sincerely, A
fe [-
s
. Tayl# ~
ecutive Difector i
for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
BRC Policy Statement 2.
BRC Explanatory Book'et l
)
I f
i l
j i
i i
i i
i CONGRESSIONAL C01RESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPAAATION CMECKLIST This checklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for entering into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DO NT(S) b f)
Pbn 8.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondense Bearings (Qs/As)
I 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC Caly) on-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUSCOMMITTEE8 (if applicable)
Congressional Committee l
Subcommittee 5.
SUBJECT CODES l
l (a)
(b)
(c) 8.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b)
Scas.
(c)
Attachments (d)
Rekey (e)
Other i
7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a) 7 Nd Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CCS receives dooumont (e)
Date returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS i
(a)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is l'.
CCS 8.
COMMENTS l
l e
--, -,, -.. -..., -, - -, - +. -,. - - _
w-~#
.-m--. - - -. -
s